M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

3[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.10 Crores under Section 69C of the Act. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.10 Crores under Section 69C of the Act. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.10 Crores under Section 69C of the Act. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.10 Crores under Section 69C of the Act. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.10 Crores under Section 69C of the Act. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

143(3) of the Act made an addition of Rs.10 Crores under Section 69C of the Act. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. Being aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By an order dated

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be had been subject matter of any appeal filed on or before after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extended and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matter as had not been considered and decided in such

SUNIL NARAYANDAS KHATOD ,AKOLA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.134/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sunil Narayndas Khatod, The Commissioner Of Nagpuri Gin Compound, Vs Income Tax-1, Behind Old Cotton Market, Nagpur. Nagpur – 444001. Pan: Adepk3087C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V.Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

143(3) of the Act could not be revised on mere 2 Sunil Narayandas Khatod [A] hypothetical/notional assumptions/presumptions. 3. The Appellant prays that it be held that the assessment order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly the action of the Pr. CIT in invoking provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VIVEK VINAYAK VAIDYA, NAGPUR

In the result appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.33/Nag/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vivek Vinayak Vaidya, Commissioner Of Income V 46-B, Krushna Krupa Reat Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur. S Nag Road, Imamwada, Nagpur – 440003. Pan: Aakpv3808M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajat Singhal – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/11/2023

section 143(3)dated 31.12.2018 for AY 2015-16. Vivek Vinayak Vaidya [R] Submission of Ld.DR : 2. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO. Ld.DR submitted that the AO had made adjustment as per the Order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act passed by the Transfer Pricing

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

143(3) on 21/12/2016. As per Assessment Order Learned Assessing Officer made an addition to income of Rs.32,26,000 under section 56(2)(viib). Section 56(2)(viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

143(3). The assessee has already submitted copy of assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14 with earlier reply. The assessee has received physical delivery of the share of Swift IT Infrastructure & Services Limited on 16/03/2012 at the rate of Rs. 10 each. The assessee has submitted the copies of share certificate during the course of assessment proceeding before the assessing

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

143(3). The assessee has already submitted copy of assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14 with earlier reply. The assessee has received physical delivery of the share of Swift IT Infrastructure & Services Limited on 16/03/2012 at the rate of Rs. 10 each. The assessee has submitted the copies of share certificate during the course of assessment proceeding before the assessing

SPARK MALL AND PARKING PVT. LTD, NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

3[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— Spark Mall and Parking Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.33/Nag./2022 (a) the order